Few-shot prompting is the technique that makes an LLM produce outputs in your shop's specific format. Show the model three submission summaries that match the carrier's intake brief template; ask for the fourth; the fourth will match. Show three FNOL summaries that match the claim department's standard; ask for the fourth; same. The technique works because language models pattern-match across the shot examples and the new input, then generalize the structural pattern to the new case. For insurance work, the few-shot examples carry the form-edition citations, the appetite-guide structure, the treaty-cession field names, and the SERFF actuarial-memorandum sections that distinguish a defensible artifact from a generic one. This lesson walks worked few-shot examples for six insurance artifacts: ACORD-driven submission summary, FNOL summary, Reservation-of-Rights letter, actuarial reserve memo, SERFF rate-filing exhibit, treaty cession recommendation, and BOR letter - each with input data, three shot examples (or input-output pairs), and the structural pattern the fourth case follows. Every shot uses synthetic data (no PII, no real account information) but every form number, regulatory citation, and standard structure is real and current as of 2026.

Few-Shot Mechanics and Why Three Shots Matter

The mechanics of few-shot prompting are straightforward but the discipline matters. The model receives: (1) the system prompt establishing role and constraints (Ch8-L1 lesson); (2) three input-output pairs demonstrating the desired pattern; (3) the new input. The model generates the new output matching the pattern observed in the three shots. The three-shot count is empirically reliable across model families (GPT-4, Claude 3.5, Gemini 1.5, Llama 3) for structured insurance artifacts; fewer than three shots produces inconsistent pattern recognition; more than three shots adds token cost without proportional quality gain on structured artifacts.

The shots themselves must represent the pattern, not exceptional cases. If the carrier's submission-summary template requires NAICS code, ISO General Liability Class Code, and SIC code, all three shots must include all three classifications. If the FNOL summary requires coverage-flag identification before reserves recommendation, all three shots must follow that sequence. The model learns from the consistency; inconsistent shots produce inconsistent generalization. The discipline: write the shots against the carrier's actual filed template, validate that each shot is correct, then test against held-out cases before production deployment.

Few-Shot 1: ACORD Submission Summary

The retail brokerage submission-summary use case: producer receives ACORD 125 (Commercial Insurance Application) + ACORD 140 (Property Section) + ACORD 130 (Workers Compensation Application) + ACORD 137 (Commercial Auto Section) + SOV + loss runs; produces a carrier-targeted submission summary highlighting the favorable underwriting positives and addressing the unfavorable patterns. Three synthetic shot examples in a hypothetical retail brokerage template:

Shot 1 input: Mid-size manufacturer (NAICS 332710 Machine Shops, SIC 3599, ISO GL Class Code 51315), 95 employees, $48M revenue, three locations Ohio + Indiana + Kentucky. ACORD 125 shows construction class Joisted Masonry on primary location built 2008, automatic sprinklers throughout, central station fire alarm. ACORD 140 SOV: Location 1 (Ohio) $14M building + $8.5M BPP; Location 2 (Indiana) $9M building + $6M BPP; Location 3 (Kentucky) $11M building + $7M BPP. Loss runs: 5-year clean except one GL claim 2022 ($47K settlement, employee slip-and-fall while on customer site, closed; rooted in customer-property condition not insured's negligence per investigation).

Shot 1 output: "Submission Summary - [Carrier Target: Hartford General Industries Appetite, per Hartford Filed Guidelines GI-2026.M.001]. Insured: [Synthetic Manufacturer LLC]. Classification: NAICS 332710 Machine Shops; SIC 3599; ISO General Liability Class Code 51315. Operations: Precision machining and fabrication services for industrial OEM customers; 95 employees across three locations Ohio + Indiana + Kentucky; $48M annual revenue. Favorable: All locations Joisted Masonry construction with sprinklers and central station fire alarm; primary location 18-year-old building; 5-year loss runs reflect operationally clean account with one minor GL claim 2022 ($47K) attributable to a customer-property condition rather than insured negligence, fully documented. Account aligned with Hartford filed appetite per GI-2026.M.001 §3.2 (industrial manufacturing under $75M revenue with multi-state operations and clean loss experience). Recommended class: Preferred-tier consideration pending UW review of: (a) inland marine sublimit needs for in-transit machinery between Ohio finishing and Indiana machining; (b) employment practices liability rider given >50 employee count; (c) cyber liability standalone or bundle. Treaty considerations: well within Hartford's standard single-risk limits; no facultative cession anticipated."

The pattern: stylized opening tag with carrier and appetite citation; insured identification; classification triad (NAICS, SIC, ISO Class Code); operations summary with relevant context; favorable section; appetite-alignment citation; recommended class with specific UW review questions; treaty considerations. The shot's discipline carries each element. Shots 2 and 3 follow the same structure with different account profiles (a Northeastern technology services firm, a Western distribution company); the fourth case - the one the model produces - matches the pattern by structural compulsion.

Few-Shot 2: FNOL Summary with Coverage-Flag Identification

The claim FNOL summary use case: adjuster receives initial loss notice (often through Hi Marley SMS, Five Sigma intake, or recorded statement from the carrier's call center); produces a structured FNOL summary that identifies coverage flags, reserves recommendation ranges, first-touch contact plan, and SLA timing. Three synthetic shots in a hypothetical adjuster format:

Shot 1 input: Auto-physical-damage FNOL on a 2023 Toyota RAV4. Insured rear-ended at intersection by third-party vehicle running red light; police report on scene; airbags deployed; vehicle towed to body shop; insured complaining of neck stiffness, third-party driver also complaining of back pain. Both vehicles drivable post-incident but towed for assessment. Property damage to insured's vehicle estimated $14K visible damage; third-party vehicle damage $9K visible. Three weeks before policy renewal date.

Shot 1 output: "FNOL Summary - [Claim Number]. Loss type: Auto - rear-end collision. Vehicles: 2023 Toyota RAV4 (insured); 2021 Honda Civic (third-party). Insured: [Synthetic Driver]; policy [number]; effective dates [dates]. Coverage flags identified: (1) Collision coverage on insured RAV4 (HO 00 03-equivalent - verify CA 00 01 11 20 form schedule); deductible per declarations page (typical $500). (2) Third-party property damage - BI/PD liability with $250K/$500K/$250K limits per declarations; PD liability for $9K damage well within limits. (3) Medical Payments / PIP coverage based on state - verify state-specific PIP requirements. (4) Bodily injury liability - third-party complaining of back pain may pursue BI claim under PD coverage policy structure. Reserves recommendation ranges: Collision repair $12K-$16K (visible $14K + likely supplemental damage); BI third-party reserve range $5K-$45K pending medical-evidence development; PD third-party $7K-$10K. First-touch contact plan: (a) Insured contact within 24 hours for vehicle status, injury status, body shop preference; (b) Third-party contact through CMS-protocol within 48 hours for statement, vehicle photo, injury status; (c) Vehicle inspection at body shop within 72 hours via Tractable photo upload. SLA timing: 24-hour insured first-touch; 48-hour third-party; 72-hour vehicle inspection; 7-day initial reserves confirmed. Subrogation potential: Third-party at-fault per police report; subrogation recovery from third-party carrier likely after collision payment to insured. Renewal-cycle note: claim within 3 weeks of renewal; affects underwriting in renewal review."

The pattern: claim identification; loss-type characterization; vehicle/property identification; coverage-flag enumeration with form-edition citations and verification notes; reserves recommendation ranges with rationale; first-touch contact plan with specific timing per party; SLA discipline; subrogation potential identification; renewal-cycle awareness if applicable. Shots 2 and 3 follow the structure with different loss types (homeowner water damage, commercial property theft); the fourth case follows.

Few-Shot 3: ROR Letter with Form Citations

The Reservation-of-Rights letter use case: complex coverage scenario where the adjuster needs to advise the insured that coverage is being investigated but reserved pending evidence development. Three synthetic shots in carrier's filed ROR template format:

Shot 1 input: Commercial property claim. Insured operates a commercial print shop. Fire loss damages building and BPP. Initial cause-of-loss investigation by independent investigator suggests possible electrical malfunction in a non-residential 3-phase 480V supply panel; possible building-code violation in original electrical installation in 2017 (10 years before loss; insured owned building since 2019). Policy in force: HO 00 03 05 11 - wait, this is commercial - CP 00 10 10 12 with various endorsements including ordinance-or-law coverage CP 04 05 06 13 sublimit $250K.

Shot 1 output: "[Carrier letterhead]. [Date]. RE: Reservation of Rights - Claim [number]. Insured: [Synthetic Print Shop]. Policy: [number]; Coverage form CP 00 10 10 12 with endorsements CP 04 05 06 13 (Ordinance or Law - sublimit $250K), CP 11 32 10 13 (Spoilage), CP 14 12 06 07 (Equipment Breakdown). Dear [Insured]: This letter confirms that [Carrier] is investigating the loss reported [date] at your business location [address]. Pending the outcome of our investigation, we are reserving our rights under the policy. SPECIFIC RESERVATIONS: (1) Investigation is ongoing into the cause and origin of the fire loss, including whether the loss originated from electrical malfunction in the 3-phase 480V supply panel and whether prior building-code conditions in the 2017 electrical installation may bear on coverage. (2) The policy's covered cause-of-loss provisions at CP 00 10 10 12 §B determine whether the fire loss is a covered loss; the policy's ordinance-or-law endorsement CP 04 05 06 13 specifies the $250K sublimit for code-compliance costs in connection with covered losses. (3) Coverage determination will depend on the investigation outcome. SPECIFIC RIGHTS RESERVED: (a) Right to deny coverage if investigation establishes that the loss falls outside the policy's covered cause-of-loss provisions; (b) Right to apply applicable sublimits and deductibles including the $250K ordinance-or-law sublimit if applicable; (c) Right to invoke any policy exclusions that the investigation may support including but not limited to dishonesty-of-employees, faulty workmanship, or wear-and-tear exclusions if applicable to specific damaged property. POLICY PROVISIONS: All policy provisions including conditions, exclusions, sublimits, deductibles, and definitions remain in full force and effect during this investigation. INVESTIGATION COOPERATION: As stated in the policy's conditions, your cooperation with our investigation is required. We will be in contact with you to schedule property inspections, document review, and any necessary statements. Please provide [list of requested documents]. NOTHING IN THIS LETTER waives any policy provisions, conditions, exclusions, or rights of the carrier. Sincerely, [Adjuster Name, Title, Claim Number, Carrier Name]."

The pattern: structured letterhead with claim ID; coverage form and endorsement enumeration with editions; investigation-status statement; specific reservations with policy-section anchors; specific rights reserved enumerated; full-policy-in-effect statement; cooperation language; document-request list; no-waiver close. Shots 2 and 3 follow the pattern with different loss types (commercial liability bodily injury, homeowner dwelling-loss). The fourth case follows.

Few-Shot 4: Reserve Memo on a Long-Tail Line

The actuarial reserve memo use case: actuary reviews the carrier's commercial general liability reserves at a specific reserve-review point; documents the methodology, the development-pattern observation, the IBNR pick, and the conclusion. Three synthetic shots in a hypothetical reserve-memo template:

Shot 1 input: Mid-size regional carrier; commercial GL line; reserve review as of December 31, 2025; AY 2017-2025 cohort with development through 12/31/2025 (e.g., AY 2017 at 96 months, AY 2025 at 12 months); chain-ladder, BF, and ELR projection candidates; cat-model not material for GL; ASOP 43 and ASOP 23 alignment required.

Shot 1 output: "Reserve Review Memo - Commercial General Liability Line. Date: 12/31/2025. Actuary [name, FCAS, MAAA] under ASOP 43 (Unpaid Claim Estimates) and ASOP 23 (Data Quality). Scope: AY 2017-2025 cohort; nine accident-year development triangle through 12/31/2025 (AY 2017 at 96 months development; AY 2025 at 12 months). Data quality: PolicyCenter export [date] passes ASOP 23 data-quality checks; reconciles to Schedule P Part 3 for prior period [date]; no material data anomalies. Development pattern: 12-to-24 month factors averaging 1.65 across stable AYs (consistent with industry NCCI/ISO benchmarks 1.45-1.85); 24-to-36 month factors averaging 1.28; longer-development factors converging. Methodology: chain-ladder primary on stable AYs 2017-2022; BF with prior-year ELR informing AYs 2023-2024; ELR with AY 2025 due to limited development. IBNR estimates: Total IBNR $52M aggregate across cohort; breakdown by AY [table]. Confidence intervals: ±15% on chain-ladder estimates, ±25% on BF estimates given AY 2023-2024 development, ±35% on AY 2025 ELR. Reconciliation to prior reserves: $4M increase from prior-period reserve due to AY 2022 development pattern (claims emerging slightly above pattern); investigation with chief claims officer confirmed claim-handling-practice shift in 2024 explaining the pattern; reserve strengthening documented in this memo. Schedule P Part 1 reconciliation: SAO reserves match Schedule P Part 1 within $0.4M variance; explanation [documented]. Conclusion: Reserve estimate $267M aggregate (paid + case + IBNR); recommended carrier reserve $267M. ASOP 43 compliance attested; ASOP 36 SAO supporting narrative referenced. Actuary [name, FCAS, MAAA] signature [date]."

The pattern: title with line; date; actuary identification with credentials and governing ASOP; scope statement; data-quality assertion under ASOP 23; development-pattern observation with benchmark comparison; methodology selection per AY cohort; IBNR estimate with confidence intervals; prior-period reconciliation; Schedule P reconciliation; conclusion with actuarial certification reference. Shots 2 and 3 follow with different LOBs (commercial auto, workers compensation). The fourth case follows.

Few-Shot 5: SERFF Rate-Filing Exhibit

The SERFF rate-filing exhibit use case: pricing actuary produces the rate-filing memorandum for SERFF submission with cover transmittal, actuarial memorandum addressing data/methodology/variable selection/bias testing, rate-change indication exhibit, and proposed effective date. Three synthetic shots:

Shot 1 input: Mid-size personal auto carrier in State X; class-plan adjustment proposed; six rating variables including age, prior insurance history, vehicle make/model, garaging zip code (with documented BISG-tested non-proxy correlation), annual mileage, prior loss experience; proposed overall +4.2% rate change with class-specific variations from -8% to +12%; bias-test exhibit showing BISG-estimated outcome rates across demographics within actuarial variation; ASOP 41 communication and ASOP 56 modeling alignment.

Shot 1 output: "SERFF Rate Filing - Personal Auto, State X. SERFF Tracking #: [number]. Filing Type: Rate Adjustment with Class Plan Modification. Effective Date Proposed: 8/1/2026. Carrier: [Synthetic Carrier]. Lines: Personal Auto. Counts: All policy classes. Section 1 (Cover Transmittal): Filing summary; proposed +4.2% overall; class-specific range -8% to +12%; effective 8/1/2026 new business and 9/1/2026 renewal. Section 2 (Actuarial Memorandum): 2a. Data - three-year loss experience [period]; carrier-specific data; ASOP 23 data-quality compliance attested. 2b. Methodology - generalized linear model with [link function]; cross-validation on [period]; out-of-sample lift documented; ASOP 56 modeling discipline applied. 2c. Variable Selection - six variables: age, prior insurance history, vehicle make/model, garaging zip, annual mileage, prior loss experience. Garaging zip BISG-tested for non-proxy correlation against race/ethnicity (correlation [coefficient] below carrier threshold [threshold]); documented per NY DFS Circular Letter 2024-7 proxy-test framework. 2d. Bias Testing Exhibit - BISG-estimated demographic outcome rates [table]; statistical significance testing [results]; per-variable contribution analysis; finds no material disparate outcomes outside actuarial variation. 2e. Class Plan Modification - rationale for class-specific variations; documented per filed class plan. 2f. Effective Date Justification. Section 3 (Rate-Change Indication Exhibit): per-class projected loss ratio under current rates; under proposed rates; rate-need analysis; combined ratio analysis. Section 4 (Compliance Assertions): ASOP 41 communications compliance attested; ASOP 56 modeling compliance attested; State X regulatory framework alignment confirmed. Section 5 (Effective Date): 8/1/2026 new business; 9/1/2026 renewal; per State X filing timing rules. Pricing actuary [name, FCAS, MAAA] signature [date]; chief actuary [name, FSA, MAAA] concurrence [date]."

The pattern: SERFF tracking and filing identification; cover transmittal section; actuarial memorandum with data/methodology/variable selection/bias testing/class plan/effective date subsections; rate-change indication exhibit with class-level projections; compliance assertions referencing ASOPs; effective date justification; pricing actuary signature with chief actuary concurrence. Shots 2 and 3 follow with different filings (commercial property, personal homeowner). The fourth case follows.

Few-Shot 6: Treaty Cession Recommendation

The treaty cession recommendation use case: reinsurance underwriter or appointed actuary reviews a specific submission against the carrier's quota share and excess-of-loss treaties; recommends cession structure, retention level, and treaty-broker engagement. Three synthetic shots:

Shot 1 input: Large commercial property submission; insured is a $500M revenue manufacturing facility in Texas; total insured values $385M (building $215M + BPP $145M + business interruption $25M); coastal Gulf wind exposure with extensive monitor system. Carrier quota share is 60% retention with 40% to Hannover Re; XL treaty above $25M loss layer up to $100M (carrier retention $25M with $75M ceded across Swiss Re 30%, Munich Re 25%, Berkshire Hathaway 25%, syndicate 20%). Single-risk limit at $50M. Facultative coverage available above treaty for excess capacity.

Shot 1 output: "Treaty Cession Recommendation - Commercial Property Submission. Submission: [Synthetic Manufacturer], Texas, TIV $385M. Carrier's treaty structure: Quota Share - 60% retention, 40% to Hannover Re (Swiss Re consortium with Hannover Re leading); XL Treaty - $75M XS $25M layer ceded 30% Swiss Re, 25% Munich Re, 25% Berkshire Hathaway, 20% syndicate. Single-risk limit $50M. Analysis: Direct net retention proposed 60% × $50M = $30M; treaty cession 40% × $50M = $20M direct; XL layer participation $75M XS $25M layer (carrier retention $25M); above $100M, facultative coverage required for excess capacity. Excess-capacity gap $285M ($385M TIV - $100M treaty capacity) requires facultative placement. Recommended structure: (1) Primary $50M direct with carrier participating at 60% net retention; (2) $50M-$100M XL via existing treaty (cedent's $25M retention within treaty); (3) $100M-$385M facultative coverage with placement target Lloyd's syndicate or Swiss Re facultative facility. Cat-exposure (coastal Gulf wind): Cat-XOL treaty capacity adequate for documented hurricane PML; multi-model reconciliation across Verisk AIR, RMS, KCC supports treaty pricing on this exposure; treaty broker (Guy Carpenter / Aon Re / Howden Re / Gallagher Re) carries documentation to facultative markets. Engagement: Treaty broker [name] engaged for facultative placement; placement timing 7-14 business days; binding letter required from facultative markets before quote. Documented in routing memo; chief underwriter approval required. Treaty cession recommendation Reviewed by [name, treaty actuary], approved by [name, chief underwriter, date]."

The pattern: submission identification; carrier treaty structure documentation; analysis with quota share, XL layer participation, and excess-capacity gap; recommended cession structure across primary/treaty/facultative; cat-exposure analysis with multi-model reconciliation; treaty broker engagement; chief-underwriter approval. Shots 2 and 3 follow with different exposures (large workers comp account, marine cargo). The fourth case follows.

Few-Shot 7: The BOR Letter

The Broker of Record letter use case: client moves their account from current broker to new broker; client signs BOR letter authorizing the new broker to take over; carrier processes BOR with proper documentation. Three synthetic shots in agency's filed BOR template:

Shot 1 input: Mid-size manufacturer moving from previous broker (mid-size regional) to new broker (national specialty); 5-year carrier relationship with Hartford on package; renewal in 90 days; client wants new broker engaged immediately for renewal marketing; carrier appointment with new broker confirmed.

Shot 1 output: "[Insured Letterhead]. [Date]. To: Hartford Insurance Company; Underwriter [name, contact]. Re: Broker of Record Designation - Effective Immediately. Policy: [Synthetic Manufacturer LLC], Policy Number [number], Effective Dates [dates]. Dear [Underwriter]: This letter authorizes [New Broker Agency], 123 Broker Lane, New York NY, agent license number [number], as Broker of Record for our account effective immediately. This designation supersedes any prior Broker of Record designation. New Broker Contact: [Name, contact information]. Prior Broker Contact: [Name, regional brokerage, contact for reference only - not authorized for account access after this BOR effective date]. The new broker is authorized to: (a) receive all correspondence and renewal materials; (b) negotiate renewal terms and conditions; (c) place coverage and bind policies on our behalf; (d) receive all carrier-provided account documentation. The carrier's compensation structure should reflect the new broker's commission arrangement per the carrier's contracted appointment with the new broker. Please update your records to reflect this Broker of Record change. We retain the right to revoke this designation in writing at any time. Sincerely, [Client Authorized Signatory, Title], [Client]; Signature [signed], [date]; Producer Acknowledgment by New Broker [name, signature, date]."

The pattern: client letterhead with date; carrier identification; subject line; effective date statement; policy reference; new broker authorization with license number; prior broker reference; specific authorizations enumerated; compensation structure note; signatory authorization with producer acknowledgment. Shots 2 and 3 follow with different scenarios (renewal-cycle BOR transition, surplus-lines BOR with diligent-effort documentation). The fourth case follows.

Key Takeaways

• Few-shot prompting works because language models pattern-match across shot examples and the new input then generalize the structural pattern. Three shots is the empirically reliable count across model families (GPT-4, Claude 3.5, Gemini 1.5, Llama 3) for structured insurance artifacts; fewer produces inconsistent pattern recognition; more adds token cost without proportional quality gain.
• The shots must represent the pattern, not exceptional cases. All three shots must include all required elements (NAICS + ISO Class Code + SIC for submission summary; form-edition citations for ROR; ASOP references for reserve memo); inconsistent shots produce inconsistent generalization.
• ACORD submission-summary pattern: carrier-appetite tag; insured identification; classification triad (NAICS, SIC, ISO General Liability Class Code); operations summary; favorable section; appetite-guide citation; recommended class with specific UW review questions; treaty considerations.
• FNOL summary pattern: claim ID; loss-type characterization; vehicle/property identification; coverage-flag enumeration with form-edition citations (CA 00 01 11 20 for auto, HO 00 03 05 11 for homeowner, CP 00 10 10 12 for commercial property); reserves recommendation ranges; first-touch contact plan; SLA timing; subrogation potential; renewal-cycle awareness.
• ROR letter pattern: structured letterhead with claim ID; coverage form and endorsement enumeration with editions; investigation-status statement; specific reservations with policy-section anchors; specific rights reserved; full-policy-in-effect statement; cooperation language; document-request list; no-waiver close.
• Reserve memo pattern: line and date; actuary credentials with governing ASOP (43 + 23); scope statement; data-quality assertion; development-pattern observation with NCCI/ISO benchmark comparison; methodology selection per AY cohort (chain-ladder/BF/ELR); IBNR with confidence intervals; prior-period reconciliation; Schedule P reconciliation; conclusion with ASOP 36 SAO supporting-narrative reference.
• SERFF rate-filing pattern: tracking and filing ID; cover transmittal; actuarial memorandum (data/methodology/variable selection with BISG proxy testing per NY DFS Circular Letter 2024-7/bias-testing exhibit/class plan/effective date); rate-change indication exhibit; ASOP 41 + 56 compliance assertions; pricing actuary signature with chief actuary concurrence.
• Treaty cession pattern: submission ID; carrier treaty structure (quota share + XL layer with cedent percentage and ceded reinsurers); analysis with retention/cession math; recommended structure across primary/treaty/facultative; cat-exposure with multi-model reconciliation (Verisk AIR + RMS + KCC); treaty broker engagement (Guy Carpenter / Aon Re / Howden Re / Gallagher Re); chief-underwriter approval.
• BOR letter pattern: client letterhead with date; carrier ID; subject line; effective date statement; policy reference; new broker authorization with license number; prior broker reference; specific authorizations; compensation structure note; signatory authorization with producer acknowledgment.